User talk:Caroline1981

Belated welcome
Thanks for typo-fixing on Giraffe and other articles. The help is much appreciated! If you're interested, there's actually a guild of copy editors here. :) Steven Walling &bull; talk   23:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=567688298 your edit] to Breakup of Yugoslavia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bay of Trieste in Central Europe to the Gates of Otran, and eastward as far as the Carpathian Mountains, thus including most of Southeast Europe,

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=568883398 your edit] to County of Pallars may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * pp=96–97}}. or in 844 by the Count of Toulouse, Fredelon.

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=574111997 your edit] to Eel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The first compound member, anguis "snake", is cognate to other Indo-European words for "snake" compare Old Irish escung "eel", Old High German unc "snake", Lithuanian angìs, Greek ''

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=578056952 your edit] to Mark Harmon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * } the daughter of Frederick and Elizabeth Kornbrath, 1920 U.S. Census, Hartford, Hartford
 * pilot]] episode for a series about two L.A. County Animal Control Officers which did not sell . Producer/creator Jack Webb, who was the packager of both series, later cast Harmon in ''[[Sam

Merger discussion for Fee tail
An article that you have been involved in editing, Fee tail, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Could use your copy editing eyes
Would you take a look at the last entry on the Talk page for Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) and putting in your two cents? thanks!--A21sauce (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Tracy Chapman
Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from Tracy Chapman. We appreciate this, but unfortunately your edit was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's [ page history] to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for details. Thank you. Graham 87 04:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Well thanks Graham except your advice assumes that I had some way of telling that using "his" for "her" in one and only one location (every other instance was "her") was due to intentional vandalism rather than merely an isolated inadvertent mistake? Might you guys help by putting a note on the page itself to alert people it's been vandalized in the past and to check the history before copy editing? That would alert people like me, who do only copy editing and are not subject matter experts in the areas we correct. Thanks for the info and the great work you do. Caroline1981 (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Russian battleship Potemkin
Thank you for violating WP:SHIPPRONOUNS in this article by your unilateral decision to replace the existing feminine pronouns with neutral ones.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Stevenson (civil engineer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Rennie. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Caroline1981 (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:OXFORD
Hi there. Please can you familiarise yourself with MOS:OXFORD and refrain from imposing it purely as a style change and only when necessary, to avoid ambiguity. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, please be careful to respect MOS:TIES for terms and spellings. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS: OXFORD allows editors to use the Oxford comma. As an editor, I use it only in the course of doing other edits. There was nothing objectively wrong with my edits, which I believe made the piece clearer and more accurate. In reverting my edits merely for “inelegance” and use of Oxford comma, you’re merely imposing your preferred writing style, not improving clarity or readability. Why not instead spend your time improving the many poorly phrased articles elsewhere in Wikipedia? Caroline1981 (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There was no question regarding the good faith of your edits. The article may be poorly-phrased in parts but overall your edits made it more so, so, to be blunt, my contribution to improving the phrasing was to revert from the poorer version.
 * There is no question that the Oxford comma is allowed but it is a style choice only so you should not impose it if it is not already there, unless to give internal consistency within an article which otherwise already uses it, or in instances where its absence causes ambiguity or active lack of clarity. Adding it in on the basis of personal preference while you are doing other edits is no justification. Please refrain. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I can stop adding the Oxford comma when it doesn’t improve clarity, but your irritation at my inserting them doesn’t merit erasing all changes in an edit. As to the rest of my edits, you’re claiming only “inelegance,” which is subjective and is not an valid reason for reversion under Wikipedia policy. In an encyclopedia, clarity and readability are more important than elegance. Ideally, an editor should achieve both, but your remedy should be to make my clearer version more “elegant” rather than to reverse all changes. If you don’t see the unclarity in the version you prefer, you may be too close to the subject matter to see it. Perhaps you wrote an earlier version and are taking my edits personally? If so I can relate to that feeling, but it’s not grounds for reversion. Please undo your reversion. When you do. I promise to remove all the Oxford commas I inserted. I hope you’ll find that a friendly compromise in keeping with editorial collegiality Caroline1981 (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Though I have made edits to that article, as far as I am aware I am not the author or a significant author of the text in contention. Do not personalise this and perhaps take a mirror to your words. My edit summaries were already pretty long and detailed and not restricted to what you have referred do above; I am not "claiming only “inelegance,”". I put in the most salient points: "some convoluted or inelegant phrasing, unnecessary qualifications, meaning changes, imposition of WP:Oxford comma", reiterated and augmented with "No improvement on previous wording; MOS:TIES". Some of your changes were neutral, some arguably mild improvements but overall they were not well-expressed and the effect was detrimental. Poorly-expressed text does not aid clarity. I retained one improvement that I noted. If you feel strongly that your edits are essential, per WP:BRD you are free to make your case on the talk page.Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please review this Wikipedia essay on reversion etiquette, criteria, and procedures. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting#Explain_reverts

My concern is that, against the advice of that essay, you reverted wholesale, rather than simply improving my version to your liking with your own edits. As the essay points out, blanket reversions (other than those removing disruptive comments or vandalism) are inappropriate. Among other problems, they tend to create discord. (A note asking me to avoid inserting Oxford commas, and alerting me to an -inadvertent- spelling change would of course have been appropriate.)

As the essay notes, “Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits....If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it.”

“Explain your reversions. A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith ...A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony.”

“If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an edit summary, leave a note on the article's Talk page. It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page first and then revert, rather than the other way around; this gives the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately.”If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an edit summary, leave a note on the article's Talk page. It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page first and then revert, rather than the other way around; this gives the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately.”

Thanks for your kind attention to my concerns. Please undo your reversion. Caroline1981 (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, I explained my reverts in detail in the edit summary, noting that they were in good faith and going to the effort of retaining a part that was an active improvement. I reverted the rest because almost none of it improved the article, much made it worse and the effort to list all the flaws in fine detail is not an imposition you should place on others lightly. Nonetheless, a few examples:
 * You do not have a boundary "at" another county, though I note the article's "to" was no better, so have changed it to "with".
 * "It is traditionally believed that, formerly, it was" is a clumsy construction, slightly changes the meaning and does not improve clarity on the matter.
 * "Among the Scottish" is not a term with currency where I'm from and has a different meaning to "within Scotland".
 * You changed "older documents" to "documents" making the point less clear.
 * Needless style-only changes by adding Oxford commas.
 * Something can be "well known for" many things, to be "well known because" of something implies just one thing.
 * "Beginning in the 10th century" is a strange and convoluted way of replacing "since". "Beginning in the 15th century" is a strange and convoluted way of replacing "from". Using the same clunky construction in two neighbouring sentences doesn't improve matters.
 * The definite article should not precede "St Andrews Cathedral".
 * The use of the term "ancient" for universities is a thing (follow the link); replacing it with "oldest" diminishes what is being conveyed. Please make an effort to understand the text you are copyediting.
 * Correctly, you rendered "South East" to one word, with two words being deprecated I believe; FWIW hyphenated is also correct. I retained this.
 * Otherwise the changes are largely neutral or slight in change of meaning, so no loss if reverted along with the undesirable edits. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Your edits to Tasmania Lead
Hello there, I have reverted your edits to the lead as I don’t think they improve it. You seem to be imposing your own preferences for certain types of punctuation; for example, em dashes rather than commas to separate clauses when either is acceptable. You have also introduced unencyclopedic language; for example, that the Napoleonic wars were “raging” in 1803. “Intertribal warfare amongst themselves” is also a tautology. I think the lead is quite well written so perhaps you should seek consensus before you make anything more than minor changes to it.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I now see why you made some of your changes. I will work on a compromise. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You’re not supposed to use reversion when you simply disagree with non-vandalizing changes; you’re welcome to change anything back through re-editing. I’m sorry my changes annoyed you and made extra work for you but reversion in this situation is against Wikipedia policy. People’s tastes will differ. It has been done to me too—changes to my text that seemed unnecessary to me and annoyed me. So i sympathize. But unless an editor has done a policy violation, it’s legitimate. That’s the way Wikipedia works. All good wishes! Caroline1981 (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

De Witt Clinton
Hi, Caroline, you recently made a spate of edits to De Witt Clinton in which you decapitalized the titles of most of the offices he held (Mayor->mayor, etc.). Are you doing this according to some WP policy that I don't know about? Or is it just a personal preference of yours? In the latter case, I strongly disagree. These titles are traditionally capitalized, when they name an official office, and I think this convention should be maintained in WP, as it is elsewhere. Cheers, Eleuther (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Per all standard style manuals (e.g the Chicago Manual of Style, the Associated Press Stylebook, etc.), titles are capitalized in front of people’s names but lowercased when they are used as descriptors. I’m a longtime professional editor and the publications I work for all conform to this usage. I’m sorry if it annoyed you! Since it’s a usage issue rather than grammar or clarity, you can always change anything back if you feel strongly. Cheers! Caroline1981 (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Caroline, I appreciate the education, and I won't worry about it again. Skol, Eleuther (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Skol! Caroline1981 (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)